[quote]Originally posted by The Blue Meanie:
<strong>The paper claimed the book had "enraged America". Is this true?</strong><hr></blockquote>It's true. I'm just sitting here, in America, and one can just feel the rage.

See all 12 sample pages
Amazon.com
Stupid White Men, Michael Moore's screed against "Thief-in-Chief" George Bush's power elite, hit No. 1 at Amazon.com within days of publication. Why? It's as fulminating and crammed with infuriating facts as any right-wing bestseller, as irreverent as The Onion, and as noisily entertaining as a wrestling smackdown. Moore offers a more interesting critique of the 2000 election than Ralph Nader's Crashing the Party (he argued with Nader, his old boss, who sacked him), and he's serious when he advocates ousting Bush. But Moore's rage is outrageous, couched in shameless gags and madcap comedy: "Old white men wielding martinis and wearing dickies have occupied our nation's capital.... Launch the SCUD missiles! Bring us the head of Antonin Scalia!... We are no longer [able] to hold free and fair elections. We need U.N. observers, U.N. troops." Moore's ideas range from on-the-money (Arafat should beat Sharon with Gandhi's nonviolent shame tactics) to over-the-top: blacks should put inflatable white dolls in their cars so racist cops will think they're chauffeurs; the ever-more-Republicanesque Democratic Party should be sued for fraud; "no contributions toward advancing our civilization ever came out of the South [except Faulkner, Hellman, and R.J. Reynolds]," because it's too hot to think straight there; Korean dictator Kim Jong-il "has got to broaden himself beyond porn and John Wayne" by watching better movies, like Dude, Where's My Car? (which contains "all you need to know about America"). Whatever your politics, Stupid White Men should make you blow your stack. --Tim Appelo <hr></blockquote>

It's sad that Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore are constantly moving towards irrelevancy because they've grown more and more senile with time (at least Chomsky has an excuse, he's old).

Moore had very important things to say at one time, if you have watched/read "Downsize This!" or "Roger and Me" or "The Big One" then you'll see Moore at his best, when he stuck more to ideas than to partisan bullshit.

Hindsight shows us that he has been this way all along with only Clinton's presidency holding him back from where he is now, but at least those days left us with the comfortable illusion that it was about ideas, not trite politicking.

Where were the constant jabs at Clinton, wasn't he a corporate shill or did his political affiliation make him immune to that like the black who cannot possibly be racist?

Half of this book is 7-10 years too late for his witty satire. Rodney King's beating happened 10 years ago, Mike, get with the times. If you want to read good Michael Moore, stick with one of the things I listed above.

There are token swipes at Democrats, but it's really quite pathetic how transparent he is.

[edit]

The Chapter "Democrats, DOA" is basically about how the Democratic party is the savior vehicle mismanaged while Republicans are just evil. He is blinded by his partisan ways and people who dislike both parties genuinely (like me) will be turned off by his intellectual dishonesty.

Yes, I read "Stupid White Men" last week. It is hilarious in places and has been #1 on Amazon.com and New York Times best seller lists for several weeks now.

Michael Moore is a self-made man from a poor working-class background who has made it on account of his own initiative, chutzpah and convictions. This is in stark contrast to Bush Jr, a man from a mega-wealthy background, a silver-spoon brat who has never had to lift a finger for himself, has 3 criminal convictions, whose ventures in business have been abject failures, who lied about his military record etc. (He also swipes at Clinton with equal energy; after all they are two of a kind and more 'Reaganesque' policies were invoked during the 8 Clinton years than during Reagans 2 terms). Oi veh!

If there was anyone who embodies the American spirit, Michael Moore deserves that description. His opposite number on the right Rush Limbaugh is in a similar vein, someone who has sold his political convictions to the public with great success. However, Rush is/has been the darling of the U.S. media, with syndicated network radio and TV shows here there and everywhere. In contrast, Moore's TV show "The Awful Truth" managed a limited run on a late night slot on "Bravo" (whazzat??), and now he cannot even get an interview with the supposedly "liberal" National Public Radio (definitely showing their true colors there).

I subscribe to Mr Moore's occasional online journal. The hostility he has encountered on his sell-out booksigning tour from police, media and even his *own publishers* has been absolutely staggering. Unbelievable. There seems to be one standard for the establishment viewpoint, and another standard for the counterpoint view. When it comes to voicing a nationally available political opinion, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, provided it is within the confines and parameters of what is acceptable to Big Brother corporate. Even for America's current #1 author, because he is running afoul of the rules. Ralph Nader was up against the same brickwall during the presidential 'election' and 'debates'. His book "Crashing the Party", which I read last week is a dry, intellectual and factual read, in stark contrast to Michael Moore's humor-oriented delivery, and illustrates that US-style democracy of today is virtually a lost cause, and how the voice of 'we-the-people' is perpetually hijacked or drowned by wholesale corporate bribery.

Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a...

[quote]Originally posted by Outsider:
<strong>Let me guess, you're his publicist! That's a lot of butt kissing for one post. Did you use chap stick?</strong><hr></blockquote>Yeah, but did you read pscates' paean to O'Reilly in that other thread?
:eek:

[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>Yes, I read "Stupid White Men" last week. It is hilarious in places and has been #1 on Amazon.com and New York Times best seller lists for several weeks now.

Michael Moore is a self-made man from a poor working-class background who has made it on account of his own initiative, chutzpah and convictions. This is in stark contrast to Bush Jr, a man from a mega-wealthy background, a silver-spoon brat who has never had to lift a finger for himself, has 3 criminal convictions, whose ventures in business have been abject failures, who lied about his military record etc. (He also swipes at Clinton with equal energy; after all they are two of a kind and more 'Reaganesque' policies were invoked during the 8 Clinton years than during Reagans 2 terms). Oi veh!

If there was anyone who embodies the American spirit, Michael Moore deserves that description. His opposite number on the right Rush Limbaugh is in a similar vein, someone who has sold his political convictions to the public with great success. However, Rush is/has been the darling of the U.S. media, with syndicated network radio and TV shows here there and everywhere. In contrast, Moore's TV show "The Awful Truth" managed a limited run on a late night slot on "Bravo" (whazzat??), and now he cannot even get an interview with the supposedly "liberal" National Public Radio (definitely showing their true colors there).

I subscribe to Mr Moore's occasional online journal. The hostility he has encountered on his sell-out booksigning tour from police, media and even his *own publishers* has been absolutely staggering. Unbelievable. There seems to be one standard for the establishment viewpoint, and another standard for the counterpoint view. When it comes to voicing a nationally available political opinion, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, provided it is within the confines and parameters of what is acceptable to Big Brother corporate. Even for America's current #1 author, because he is running afoul of the rules. Ralph Nader was up against the same brickwall during the presidential 'election' and 'debates'. His book "Crashing the Party", which I read last week is a dry, intellectual and factual read, in stark contrast to Michael Moore's humor-oriented delivery, and illustrates that US-style democracy of today is virtually a lost cause, and how the voice of 'we-the-people' is perpetually hijacked or drowned by wholesale corporate bribery.</strong><hr></blockquote>

:cool:

--All work and no play makes Jack a dull boyAll wor k and no play makes Jack a dull boyyAlll work and no play makes Jack a dull boyAll work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

There are token swipes at Democrats, but it's really quite pathetic how transparent he is.

[edit]

The Chapter "Democrats, DOA" is basically about how the Democratic party is the savior vehicle mismanaged while Republicans are just evil. He is blinded by his partisan ways and people who dislike both parties genuinely (like me) will be turned off by his intellectual dishonesty.

[ 03-31-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Groverat me old chum, you may not agree with the party politics, but what about all stuff about the status of black people in US society and the ongoing legacy of slavery? I don't know how obvious all that was to a person of your undoubted intelligence ( ), but it seemed powerful to The Blue Meanie:

[quote] I don't know what it is, but every time I see a white guy walking towards me, I tense up. My heart starts racing, and I immediately begin to look for an escape route and a means to defend myself. I kick myself for even being in this part of town after dark. Didn't I notice the suspicious gangs of white people lurking on every street corner, drinking Starbucks and wearing their gang colours of Gap turquoise or J Crew mauve? What an idiot! Now the white person is coming closer, closer - and then - whew! He walks by without harming me, and I breathe a sigh of relief.<hr></blockquote> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

--All work and no play makes Jack a dull boyAll wor k and no play makes Jack a dull boyyAlll work and no play makes Jack a dull boyAll work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>Moore had very important things to say at one time, if you have watched/read "Downsize This!" or "Roger and Me" or "The Big One" then you'll see Moore at his best, when he stuck more to ideas than to partisan bullshit.

As for Moore, He's the guy that responded to Sept. 11 by lamenting that more Republicans weren't killed. He has nothing to say to me.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Was there any media outcry over this statement? I never even heard this. Can you imagine the media outcry if some prominent Republican had expressed disappointment that it was too bad that there wasn't a meeting of either the ACLU, ABA, Sierra club, or Democrat convention there at that time?

I used to love Michael Moore's work. Frankly, this book and his recent appearnces on campuses and talk shows bores me. He's a politician now. I just feel like he doesn't see what's in front of him all times. Sure, he's on target with some stuff he says, but it's like blindfolded target practice.

Well, that and the fact that anyone who rallies to the name of Bill Clinton without fail can't really be a liberal at heart. Clinton was possibly the most conservative President we've had in modern times with his pro-rich folk, pro-business (anti-consumer), pro-establishment agenda. Say what you will about his international policy, his domestic policy made Ronald Reagan look like a hippie.

[quote]Well, that and the fact that anyone who rallies to the name of Bill Clinton without fail can't really be a liberal at heart.<hr></blockquote>

A-freakin'-men.

roger, when and where did he say that?? I remember him saying something to the effect of "if the terrorists did this because they wanted to get back at Bush then they attacked they chose the wrong cities (Boston & Cali (flight origination and destination) and NY (the attack area))" but I haven't heard of him saying that he regrets the fact that there wasn't a Republican convention in the WTC that day or something to that effect.

That would truly be a horrible thing to say, so I'll try to reserve judgement on it until I can see a little confirmation (not that you should go hunting it down for me, of course).

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
roger, when and where did he say that??</strong><hr></blockquote>

He wrote an article/letter that he posted on his website just after 9/11. This was was in it:

Many families have been devastated tonight. This just is not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes' destination of California--these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!

He later edited these comments. Makes no difference to me. The man is obscene.

last i read was "Downsize This"... it was crap. The docu of it was worse. I loved Roger&Me... but Moore's been nothing but an armchair critic since. Blacks still in slavery? oh gasp! what a revelation!

[quote]Originally posted by Outsider:
<strong>Hey BM, You wouldn't happen to be Mr. Moore now would you? You defend the guy like he was your wife </strong><hr></blockquote>

Hey, Outsider, don't you mean Samantha Jones Olleande? All I've said so far is that I thought there some powerful passages in the book and some bits that made me laugh, and I've acknowledged that he has a political agenda.
No, TBM is not Michael Moore. I weigh a lot less and I don't own any baseball caps for one thing.

--All work and no play makes Jack a dull boyAll wor k and no play makes Jack a dull boyyAlll work and no play makes Jack a dull boyAll work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

He wrote an article/letter that he posted on his website just after 9/11. This was was in it:

Many families have been devastated tonight. This just is not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes' destination of California--these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!
</strong><hr></blockquote>

:confused: In what way is that passage advocating killing Republicans, roger_ramjet me old right-wing warhouse? In no way as far as I can see. This is a pretty extreme example of the hostility and vitriol Samantha was talking about in her post - you're twisting his words to suit your own conservative agenda. You don't like the message so you're trying to character-assassinate the messenger.
sc_markt is right - if he'd really said what you're claiming, there would have been a huge outcry.

A stooge of who? Is there some Machiavellian leftist Dr Evil in an underground lair somewhere, controlling a network brainwashed agents out to say unkind things about the Amercian Way? I also saw "Roger & Me" and "Downsize This" but I don't see finboy's point here at all. Hasn't RM always been left-wing? Isn't opposition to the examples of ruthless capitalism at its worst highlighted in those films inherently left-wing?

--All work and no play makes Jack a dull boyAll wor k and no play makes Jack a dull boyyAlll work and no play makes Jack a dull boyAll work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

Someone doesn't have to be in direct control of Moore, he's just a sucker and turned into a causehead attached like a leech to a particular side whether it's good or evil.

[quote]Isn't opposition to the examples of ruthless capitalism at its worst highlighted in those films inherently left-wing?<hr></blockquote>

Leftist, yes. Democrat, no.
What he has turned himself into is a Democrat-in-disguise, pulling for the jack-ass party and thereby sacrificing all claims to being a real liberal.

The "left" in America isn't "left" at all, it's just a tiny bit scooted over from the American "right". They're essentially the same but they have different platitudes. Moore has decided to make himself Rush Limbaugh's counterpart so the things he says now in attempts to be "independent" are hollow and without weight.

[quote]Originally posted by The Blue Meanie:
<strong>
In what way is that passage advocating killing Republicans, roger_ramjet me old right-wing warhouse? In no way as far as I can see. This is a pretty extreme example of the hostility and vitriol Samantha was talking about in her post - you're twisting his words to suit your own conservative agenda. You don't like the message so you're trying to character-assassinate the messenger.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Bullshit. People rightly went ballistic when Fallwell and Robertson were peddling their extreme views in the wake of 9/11. But you won't hold Moore to the same standards? What the hell is going on here? Not only that, you accuse me of twisting his words!! He complained that thousands WHO DID NOT VOTE for Bush were killed. His emphasis. It doesn't at all twist his words to recognize what he was implying - the way to get at Bush would therefore have been to kill instead those who did vote for him. If that wasn't the implication, then why even talk about who the 9/11 victims voted for anyway? What other reason would he have had for bringing the subject up? Even Moore understood what he'd done. That's why he removed the comments from his website.

Bullshit. People rightly went ballistic when Fallwell and Robertson were peddling their extreme views in the wake of 9/11. But you won't hold Moore to the same standards? What the hell is going on here?
[ 04-06-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

What is going on here is reality you crack head. Fallwell blamed innocent people (gays and minorities) for peoples deaths. Moore on the other hand was just pointing out that the policies that most muslims so staunchly disagree with such as complete and unequivocal support for Israel are more conservative ideas while the people who died on september 11 happened to be more liberal. He is in no way saying that anyone deserved to die that day nor that he wished more republicans would have died, he is simply saying that the message Osoma was sending was directed towards the wrong group. It's like if you were mad at the post office so you ended up throwing a brick threw the window of your local UPS station. The Blue Meanie is right when he says that you are simply twisting his words to fit your agenda. typical conservative BS

[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:
<strong>I consider Falwell, Moore and their extremist ilk to be utterly retarded. And anybody that defends either is likewise retarded.</strong><hr></blockquote>

A moderate from Berkeley? People shouldn't compare Moore and Falwell because one preaces hate and the other a plan to solve poverty. Just because you don't believe that Moore's ideas would work doesn't mean that he is retarted

I think it's hillarious that people actually think that muslim extremeists like Democrats more than Republicans! This is just too funny. And that because of where someone lives they should be slotted as either a D or a R.

The Blue Meanie is right when he says that you are simply twisting his words to fit your agenda. typical conservative BS

Ah, now we see your true colors. A party man. (and I don't mean birthday parties)